Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/2445/183367
Title: Patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension with and without cardiovascular risk factors: Results from the AMBITION trial
Author: McLaughlin, Vallerie V.
Vachiéry, Jean-Luc
Oudiz, Ronald J.
Rosenkranz, Stephan
Galiè, Nazzareno
Barberà i Mir, Joan Albert
Frost, Adaani E.
Ghofrani, Hossein-Ardeschir
Peacock, Andrew J.
Simonneau, Gérald
Rubin, Lewis J.
Blair, Christiana
Langley, Jonathan
Hoeper, Marius M
AMBITION Investigators
Keywords: Hipertensió pulmonar
Avaluació del risc per la salut
Malalties cardiovasculars
Pulmonary hypertension
Health risk assessment
Cardiovascular diseases
Issue Date: 1-Dec-2019
Publisher: Elsevier
Abstract: Background: The purpose of this study was to compare patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension enrolled in the AMBITION trial with (excluded from the primary analysis set [ex-primary analysis set]) and without (primary analysis set) multiple risk factors for left ventricular diastolic dysfunction. Methods: Treatment-naive patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension were randomized to once-daily ambrisentan and tadalafil combination therapy, ambrisentan monotherapy, or tadalafil monotherapy. The primary end point was time from randomization to first adjudicated clinical failure event. Results: Primary analysis set patients (n = 500), compared with ex-primary analysis set patients (n = 105), were younger (mean, 54.4 vs 62.1 years) with greater baseline 6-minute walk distance (median, 363.7 vs 330.5 meters) and fewer comorbidities (e.g., hypertension and diabetes). Treatment effects of initial combination therapy vs pooled monotherapy were directionally the same for both populations, albeit of a lower magnitude for ex-primary analysis set patients. Initial combination therapy reduced the risk of clinical failure compared with pooled monotherapy in primary analysis set patients (hazard ratio, 0.50; 95% confidence interval, 0.35-0.72), whereas the effect was less clear in ex-primary analysis set patients (hazard ratio, 0.70; 95% confidence interval, 0.35-1.37). Overall, primary analysis set patients had fewer clinical failure events (25% vs 33%), higher rates of satisfactory clinical response (34% vs 24%), and lower rates of permanent study drug withdrawal due to adverse events (16% vs 31%) than ex-primary analysis set patients. Conclusions: Efficacy of initial combination therapy vs pooled monotherapy was directionally similar for primary analysis set and ex-primary analysis set patients. However, ex-primary analysis set patients (with multiple risk factors for left ventricular diastolic dysfunction) experienced higher rates of clinical failure events and the response to combination therapy vs monotherapy was attenuated. Tolerability was better in primary analysis set than ex-primary analysis set patients.
Note: Reproducció del document publicat a: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healun.2019.09.010
It is part of: Journal of Heart and Lung Transplantation, 2019, vol. 38, num. 12, p. 1286-1295
URI: http://hdl.handle.net/2445/183367
Related resource: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healun.2019.09.010
ISSN: 1053-2498
Appears in Collections:Articles publicats en revistes (Medicina)
Articles publicats en revistes (IDIBAPS: Institut d'investigacions Biomèdiques August Pi i Sunyer)

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
719302.pdf348.73 kBAdobe PDFView/Open


This item is licensed under a Creative Commons License Creative Commons